"President-Elect Donald Trump’s upset victory in last month’s presidential election was not just a loss for Democrat Hillary Clinton — it also was a continuation of her party’s dramatically shrinking geographic footprint.

Even as he lost the popular vote by 2.5 million votes, Trump carried 2,625 counties, compared with just 487 for Clinton. President Obama in 2008 won nearly twice as many counties, 875, according to data compiled by the University of Virginia Center for Politics. And that total was far off the pace of Bill Clinton. He won 1,527 counties during the 1996 election, nearly equaling Republican Sen. Bob Dole’s total."

It has been said that Bill Clinton was the worst thing to happen to the Progressive Party, which has ruled the Democratic platform since the 90s. The election of Donald Trump was more than just an upset, it was a total repudiation of progressive politics which Obama championed since winning office in 2008. But it's not only Clinton or even Obama. Progressive ideas which had their hight - or rather zenith with Obama during the last 8 years have been largely unpopular, and this election is proof of that. Pick the hobby-horse, Obamacare, gay-marriage, transgender bathrooms, the American people have been largely silent on these issues except when valid polling has taken place. What we found out this cycle is that polls are useless as people spoke their displeasure at the ballot box when they rejected not only Hillary and her platform message, but that of Barrack Obama as well.

Democrats are now considered to be on the outside of the mainstream, how long they remain there is to be seen.

Legal experts are saying a Pennsylvania recount is unlikely. Trump is up by 70,000 votes there, well over any recount margin in the past. Reasonable doubt would have to be established before a court. Hearsay from a couple of "experts", vs facts that no evidence of voter fraud has been documented. Fact is according to news reports on election day there were vast claims of voting machines changing Trump votes to Clinton, so if anyone had a claim it would have been if Trump would have lost.
By the way Michigan just completed a recount, and certified the results, and Trump still won the state, so a challenge there will produce zero results as well.

Major democrats are reporting discomfort at Stein's circus as it will forever taint democrat claims that the election results should be accepted lest the democratic process be undermined, as Hillary claimed of Trump. Even the Obama administration over the weekend released a statement that the election was valid and that that transition should move forward.

Stein is simply getting the depleted green party coffers replenished for 2020 and suckers are buying up. Won't stop the media from using the "suspense" to tarnish Trump's transition to power and inauguration day.

If you need a refresher, Fast and Furious is a US lead gun operation that lost track of 1000s of weapons that fell in to drug runners hands one of which was used to murder agent Brian Terry, and several other agents over the years. What was missing was a key principle in the operation, now through Judicial Watch we know who that is.Via Judicial Watch:

President Obama’s trusted senior adviser, Valerie Jarrett, was a key player in the effort to cover up that Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress about the Fast and Furious scandal, according to public records obtained by Judicial Watch.

The information is part of a Department of Justice (DOJ) “Vaughn index” detailing records about the gun-running operation known as Fast and Furious. JW had to sue the agency for the records after the Obama administration failed to provide them under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A federal court ordered the DOJ to provide the records over the agency’s objections.

Yesterday JW reported on the broad information in the records, including that Obama asserted executive privilege for Holder’s wife as part of the administration’s efforts to cover up the scandal.

Practically lost in the 1,000-plus pages of records is an index that shows Jarrett was brought in to manage the fact that Holder lied to Congress after the story about the disastrous gun-running operation broke in the media. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ran the once-secret program that allowed guns from the U.S. to be smuggled into Mexico so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels. Instead, federal law enforcement officers lost track of hundreds of weapons which have been used in an unknown number of crimes, including the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Arizona.

The files received by JW include three electronic mails between Holder and Jarrett and one from former U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke to Jarrett. The e-mails with Holder are all from October 4, 2011, a significant date because, on the evening of October 3rd, Sheryl Attkisson (then at CBS news) released documents showing that Holder had been sent a briefing paper on Operation Fast and Furious on June 5, 2010. The paper was from the director of the National Drug Intelligence Center, Michael Walther.

This directly contradicted Holder’s May 3, 2011 testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, during which he stated that he, “probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.” The October 4, 2011 date may also be significant because it came shortly after the August 30, 2011 resignation of U.S. Attorney for Arizona Dennis Burke and reassignment of acting ATF director Kenneth Melson to the position of “senior forensics advisor” at DOJ.

The description of one of the e-mails, written from Jarrett to Holder, reads, “re: personnel issues.” Another, also from Jarrett, reads, “outlining and discussing preferred course of action for future responses in light of recent development in congressional investigation.” Unfortunately, the index is vague and that’s all the information we have about them. Nevertheless, given the timing and subject of these e-mails, it seems clear that Jarrett quickly became a key player in the Fast and Furious cover-up in the immediate aftermath of the revelation that Holder had lied to Congress.

Analysis of Trump's rise in the polls shows that the Comey announcement on October 28th, had little or nothing to do with it. According to Nate Silver, 528 and other polling prognosticators that Trump's rise began before that. One, a poll taken before Comey's announcement showed that more than 42% of Clinton supporters considered her dishonest, but would still vote for her. Trump's rise is due mostly to anti-establishment fever, independents breaking his way 3-1, along with more support from blacks (34%), than previous elections. All told that the numbers would be as tight even if Comey never mentioned any results, or even if Clinton was under investigation.

The news that Comey still won't bring jobs hurts Clinton more than Trump because it verifies his, "The system is rigged", which a majority of Americans already believe, as well as the public belief that Clinton is above the law.

So while not the news people wanted it nonetheless is better for Trump than Clinton at this point, who's Foundation is still under investigation.

It's interesting and telling that no major network, published an online poll because they were either overwhelmingly Trump, or they thought they would be. Right now most of the major online polls are a win for Trump. True they are not "scientific", but they were limited respondents to only one vote, and as far as polls go you only the answer people give you at the time they are called, polled, so, about the same. So far much of the professional polling has the race as a dead heat.

Focus groups were more pronounced, as every-time Hillary went on about her accomplishments, they went down. I don't know if it's a memory lapse or something else, but the fact is she has no measurable accomplishments in Government, as First Lady, Senator (NY) and then as Secretary of State, as proven by track records well established by now. Unless you consider the debacle in Syria as a "success".
Trump's lack of government experience argument went out the window when Barack Obama was elected, who also had the same limitations of experience (community service notwithstanding).

Showing that the experience quotient matters but not as much to voters as someone who promises change in the status quo. People are sick of same old same politics which goes no where yet creates worse chaos in it's wake.
The secret of Trump's popularity, is a measure of America's fatigue toward the political elite and their constant scandals, misfires in foreign policy and other issues. To hear Clinton talk about her policy successes is like me describing the way I scramble an omelet. To me it looks good, but what I mess I make, and worse, I hope someone else cleans it up.

Reported Clinton camp pressure on NBC's producer to go after Trump as Holt's performance turned out to be accurate and again, it turns out NBC just can't get a moderator who can just moderate. They're job isn't to fact check, or become the 3rd debater for either candidate, thus Holt's performance is being criticized by even the most moderate of political observers.

The "Crowley Effect" needs to be addressed by the debate commission. Between the two candidates speaking to their perspective choirs they lost nobody, but IND and UND but a 4% switch from UND to "Likely Trump". Fact is that Clinton represents the establishment which most voters have had enough of and anyone who is anti-establishment is likely have a better chance this year than in previous years.

As far as October Surprises, Trump has weathered most controversy and grown, while Clinton has lost in some cases a 8 point advantage after the convention. However, unlike Trump she can ill afford more bad news and leaker, Julian Assange promises there is much more being held back that hasn't been released yet. If it shows anything of value, or adds to mounting evidence to the email scandal, or perhaps more foundation issues, she's done.
There could be a surprise for Trump, but unless it's naked pictures (sorry) of him with a cat or worse, I don't think much else sticks. Sorry, but "He's a dirty business man" doesn't surprise most people, except to the fringe left wings who hate any kind of business or evidently sucess for that matter. So right now I don't see much that would make a dent.

Additionally like him or hate him, Donald Trump is a product of America's Reality TV loving, Idol worshiping love of the bombastic person, in your face, the kind of person that makes you say yeah!
Hillary on the other hand appears mad, agitated, frustrated, and for most she brings up memories of the 90s, but not in a good way, visa Whitewater, Paula Jones, "Bimbo Eruptions",Impeachment, all the way to her losing her cool during the Benghazi hearings, "What difference does it make?" Well it seems a lot, especially to the parents of those who were killed in what pretty much was left off the resume of foreign policy achievement.

Another issue is that of Bernie supporters, some of which just to "pay back"for what they perceive as the criminal way in which she stole the nomination away from their standard bearer, and perhaps just stay home and not vote, the results would be catastrophic as the Clinton camp includes them in their internal polling calculations. Trump has no significant 3rd party opposition, and it's likely more than half of Johnson's supports will throw the switch for Trump than just throw their vote away, rather than stay home.

Either way after the first debate there is likely going to be a further momentum for Trump, as Hillary did not sell herself well to IND and UND, and again, against all odds, screw ups and other negatives about Trump, he came into the to the debate with a 54.5% chance of winning the election. Pretty amazing.

I don't think last night really changed it, and if it did it's likely a bump for Trump.